Plenary,

Meeting date: Thursday, May 25, 2000

Official Report 664KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

United Kingdom Parliament (Visits)

To ask the acting First Minister when he next plans to visit the Westminster Parliament. (S1F-335)

I was in the Westminster Parliament on Monday of last week and I intend to be there again some time following that Parliament's Whitsun recess.

As the acting First Minister is well aware, we are much further ahead on section 2A than they are south of the border. Does he welcome, as I do, the fact that the proposed amendment 141 to the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill has now been supported by every party in this chamber? Is there not an obligation on us to turn that consensus in the chamber into acceptance outwith the chamber? Will that not depend on clarity of expression? To help us in that process, will the acting First Minister reassure us by saying that, after the passage of the bill, a local authority that ignores guidelines on sex education will be in breach of its obligations to the Parliament and to parents?

I confirm what Mr Salmond said: the amendment that was passed has enjoyed cross-party support. I agree that there is consensus in this Parliament for the repeal of section 2A and for the amendment that has been accepted, and I hope that we can—as we ought to—generate that consensus in the community. As Mr Salmond knows well, it is being proposed that ministers may issue statutory guidance—indeed, it is accepted that they will—that will place on Scotland's local authorities an obligation to follow it.

I have the proposed guidance that was circulated on 28 February. It is very helpful indeed. In paragraphs 6, 7 and 8, there is specific reference to the curriculum, to the content and to the guidelines. Does the acting First Minister agree that an artificial distinction between guidance and guidelines is not sustainable? To provide the reassurance that people outside the chamber will require if they are to agree with the consensus inside it, will the acting First Minister state that a local authority that ignored guidelines on sex education would be in breach of its obligations to the Parliament and parents?

I confess some surprise at Mr Salmond's question because he knows well that there is an important distinction between guidance and guidelines.

Statutory guidelines on the content of the curriculum have never been part of the Scottish education tradition and it is not the intention of the Executive to make them part of Scottish education.

Neither do we support a national curriculum, but we do support a statutory underpinning of guidelines.

Does the acting First Minister accept that the guidance notes contain references to the curriculum, the content and the guidelines? Does he accept that the interpretation of Judith Gillespie—who originally suggested this amendment—is exactly the same as ours? Does he accept that to turn the consensus that is growing in this chamber, which many of us have been looking for for a number of months, into acceptance outwith it—and not to squander an opportunity to resolve this debate outside the chamber—an artificial distinction between guidelines and guidance is not sustainable? Does he accept that a local authority in Scotland must have an obligation to make guidelines on sex education meaningful rather than meaningless?

Again, it causes me some surprise that Mr Salmond is saying that there is an artificial distinction. I think he knows the importance of the distinction between statutory guidelines, which have never been part of the Scottish education tradition, and the guidance that we believe will be statutory and will underpin the guidance that ministers issue to directors of education.

I regret very much that Mr Salmond seems to be breaking the consensus.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he next intends to meet the Prime Minister and what issues he plans to raise with him. (S1F-345)

I am sure that I speak on behalf of the whole Parliament in congratulating the Prime Minister and Mrs Blair on the birth of their new son.

I hope to meet the Prime Minister at a forthcoming joint ministerial committee meeting.

I hope that the acting First Minister will not be asked to change a nappy; but the Prime Minister might ask him to change a policy, following on from some of the questions Mr Salmond asked today about section 28, or 2A.

As the Labour Government's replacement for section 28 in England and Wales would give statutory recognition to the institution of marriage, a family man such as the Prime Minister would no doubt agree with the Conservatives that the same should apply in Scotland. Why is the acting First Minister not prepared to introduce a similar replacement section in the bill in Scotland, which would recognise the important place of marriage in Scottish society and in raising children?

It is important to make the point that we will devise a Scottish solution to this specific Scottish issue. The measure that the Scottish Executive has brought in and added as a section in the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Bill, emphasises the importance of the stability of family life. I indicated, when I announced the Executive's proposals on family law, that marriage is

"the most recognisable and widely accepted way of signalling to society a couple's commitment to each other and to their life together as parents."—[Official Report, 20 Jan 2000; Vol 4, c 275]

I equally recognised that many children do not live in families where their parents are married. It would be wrong for the Executive or the Parliament to discriminate in some way against those children. I emphasise again that it is our belief that family settings—albeit they take diverse forms—are nevertheless the best setting for the care and upbringing of children.

The problem with the Executive's Scottish solution is that it is not acceptable to the Scottish people. The Executive stubbornly refuses to put any mention of marriage in the replacement clause when everyone, including its colleagues in Westminster, the Churches in Scotland and Mr McMahon from its own back benches, are telling it to think again. In light of yesterday's decision at the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, will the acting First Minister agree that it has, sadly, taken the eviction of the Scottish Parliament from the assembly hall for a resolution to be passed in that chamber that reflects public opinion in Scotland on this issue?

Public opinion in Scotland would agree with the amendment that we added to the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Bill, which recognises the importance of stable family life as the best way of bringing up children.

The working group that was set up to examine the guidance and how sex education is taught in school praised the work that is being done in our schools and the draft guidance that had been prepared. With these measures in force—the statutory underpinning of guidance to local authorities, the amendment that refers to the importance of having regard to the stage of development of each child and to the stability of family life, and the removal from the statute book of a piece of legislation that was passed in 1987 and which a section of our population finds offensive and prejudicial—we will have a package that will commend itself to the Scottish people.

The Deputy First Minister will be aware that the European Committee is undertaking a very important inquiry into European structural funds and additionality. When he meets the Prime Minister, will he tell him that the refusal by Gordon Brown and John Reid to give evidence to the inquiry is tantamount to contempt of the Parliament? Does he agree that they should attend? Does he agree that the real agenda of Gordon Brown and John Reid is to stop the Parliament growing and flourishing and to stop it achieving its full potential? Will he tell the Prime Minister that the Parliament deplores their decision not to attend to give evidence?

Although I am not a member of the same party as the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I have to say that my dealings with them as Westminster ministers have shown me that they are supportive of the Parliament. Tomorrow I will meet the Chancellor of the Exchequer to discuss issues such as the knowledge economy and tackling poverty jointly with Westminster and the National Assembly for Wales. That is indicative of their commitment to supporting the work of the Parliament.

He should be attending the European Committee.

Order. When you have had the chance to ask your question, you should not add to it by shouting, Mr Crawford.

When the Deputy First Minister next meets the Prime Minister, will he ask him what legal advice the UK Government has received on the implications of the European convention on human rights for the cross-examination of rape victims by the alleged perpetrator? Will he then have second thoughts on allowing that totally unacceptable practice to continue, or can he here and now correct the incorrect and wrong-headed interpretation of the European convention on human rights that is attributed to the Scottish Executive on page 1 of The Scotsman today?

I am grateful to Mr Chisholm for giving me the opportunity to remind the Parliament that on 20 January, in a reply to a question from Johann Lamont, I said that we wanted to introduce legislation on that issue. I did not hide the fact that there were practical issues to be addressed with regard to the European convention on human rights. Nevertheless, we intend to introduce legislation that is robust and will stand up to challenge and give the proper protection that victims of crime, and in particular rape victims, justifiably deserve.

---

Genetically Modified Organisms

To ask the First Minister what measures can be put in place to ensure that seed growers and distributors do not sell GM contaminated seed as non-GM seed. (S1F-346)

The Scottish Executive, in common with the other UK agriculture departments, is already taking steps to strengthen existing measures for monitoring and controlling the GM content of seeds. That involves the development of an industry-wide code of practice and the introduction of new requirements for the import of seeds from third countries.

In the light of recent events, however, we are taking further measures to strengthen controls, including introducing spot checks on seed imports from 1 June and proposals for new international standards on seed purity in relation to GM material.

As farmers in my constituency are now contacting me on this issue, can the Deputy First Minister give details of how farmers should effectively dispose of their GM-contaminated crop, which is now germinating? Secondly, will he add anything about compensation, which Ross Finnie discussed earlier?

I advise farmers not to take precipitate action that might compromise their position. As my colleague Ross Finnie said in reply to an earlier question, on the basis of current advice there are no public health or environmental reasons for the destruction of crops. We are trying to gather as much information as possible, not least from Canada. We will continue to monitor the situation very closely.

If any farmer considers that he has suffered significant loss as a result of contaminated seed supplied by the company, he should consider carefully with his legal advisers the remedies that might be available vis-à-vis the company.

Will the Deputy First Minister confirm that the sterile GM plants resulting from the Monsanto GM contamination of Advanta seeds can be fertilised by the rest of the rape plants? Is the Executive content for those plants to go into the food chain via animal feed, because of the lack of animal food regulations? Will he also confirm that the GM variety has not been approved under the deliberate release directive?

As Mr Harper will appreciate from answers that have already been given, we are making a close and detailed evaluation of the issues, including fertility, to which he referred. I understand that there is no advice yet from the relevant animal feed advisory bodies regarding possible routes into the food chain. I emphasise the importance of getting the best information that is available so that it will be possible to address some of the valid questions raised by Mr Harper.

---

Age Discrimination (Guidance)

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive has issued any guidance about age discrimination to the public bodies for which it has responsibility. (S1F-339)

Equality and employment legislation are reserved to Westminster. The Scottish Executive shares the United Kingdom Government's view that age discrimination is unfair and makes no economic sense.

The Executive's policy of promoting equality for all is made clear to all public bodies for which we are responsible.

As the minister is aware, 61,000 people in Scotland are victims of dementia. Unlike any other group, they are liable for their nursing costs if they are treated in a residential or nursing home. My question is in two parts. With respect, I would be pleased to receive a clear and direct answer to each.

Part one: does the acting First Minister accept that compelling older people to sell their homes to meet that liability is a brutal and indefensible example of age discrimination?

Part two: will he support the principles of my dementia bill, which would outlaw the practice at the stroke of a ministerial pen?

For a minute that was a bit like being back in May—having two-part questions to answer. As Christine Grahame knows, such questions do not relate to the employment practices of the Scottish Executive, but to the implementation of the Sutherland report, parts of which have been implemented. As is well known from recent debates in the Parliament, Susan Deacon and Iain Gray are taking forward many of the Sutherland recommendations. Some of those are reserved to Westminster, but others can be dealt with here. We are pursuing them and will report regularly to the Parliament when decisions are made.

Is the minister aware that the demonstration by Strathclyde elderly forum at the Parliament today is against the very worst form of age discrimination—poverty through age? What representations does the minister propose to make to the Prime Minister on age-related poverty in Scotland? What particular protest will he convey about the dire insult of a 75p a week pension increase?

The last part of that is outside the scope of the question.

Dorothy-Grace Elder's question is opportune. I have said that there will be a meeting tomorrow of the joint ministerial committee on poverty. Addressing the issues of pensioner poverty is on the agenda. It is important that the Scottish Executive works together with Westminster, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Office to improve the lot of pensioners in our country. I am sure that the whole chamber will join me in saying that that is a proper objective. We are trying to take concrete steps to do that.

Is the Deputy First Minister aware of the compulsory retirement age in the fire service? Given his earlier comments, does he agree that that can prove wasteful of experience, knowledge and expertise?

Mr Gallie may be aware that there is a code of practice on age diversity in employment. The Scottish Executive has conducted an interim review of retirement, although not specifically with regard to firemen. For other offices, the retirement age has been 60, but we are being more flexible about that, judging situations case by case. Indeed, the whole question of greater flexibility in regard to retirement age is currently under review.

---

Digital Scotland

To ask the First Minister how he intends to consult on the implementation of the digital Scotland task force report. (S1F-355)

We are very grateful to the members of the digital Scotland task force for their contribution to the work of the group and to its report. The report was published on 22 May and the public consultation will last until the end of June. Copies of the report can be obtained from the digital Scotland website, which also offers a forum for online comment and discussion. My colleagues and I want to hear the views of as many people as possible on the important issues covered by the task force's report.

Does the minister agree that in taking Scotland into the digital age—a necessary step for our industry and commerce—we must be mindful of the digital divide that is already emerging? As one in five families has a computer in the home, we must apply the principles of social inclusion in taking forward the digital age.

It is essential that we bear in mind principles of social inclusion to avoid a division into the information-rich and the information-poor. That is why we want to make computers available in the classroom and in communal facilities. There are different, imaginative ways in which we must develop to ensure that the opportunities that flow from digital technology are available throughout the community.